West Bend Mutual Insurance Company v. Swain et al

Filing 29

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER signed by Senior Judge Charles R. Simpson, III on 4/20/2017, GRANTING Defendant Swain's 16 and 17 Motions for Extension of Time. cc: Counsel(RLK)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
AT LOUISVILLE
WEST BEND MUTUAL
INSURANCE COMPANY

PLAINTIFF

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:16-CV-00532-CRS

v.

CARLESS SWAIN
AND
K&Q, INC.
d/b/a LIL’ KINGS AND QUEENS
DEVELOPMENT CENTER

DEFENDANTS

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Defendant Carless Swain moves this Court for an extension of time to file her reply in
support of her motion to dismiss the complaint of Plaintiff West Bend Mutual Insurance
Company (“West Bend”). She filed two motions for an extension of time. The first, filed on
November 17, 2016, requested an additional week in which to file her reply, ECF No. 16. The
second, filed on November 24, 2016, requested two additional days, ECF No. 17. West Bend
responded, ECF No. 19. Swain replied, ECF No. 21. Swain filed the subject reply in support of
her motion to dismiss on November 26, 2016, ECF No. 18.
West Bend argues that the motions should be denied because Swain failed to show good
cause. Resp. Opp. Mots. Extension 1–2, ECF No. 19. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1)
allows the court to extend the time for an act to be done when there is good cause. Local Rule
7.1(b) requires a party seeking an extension of time to set forth the reasons for the extension.

1

This Court prefers to adjudicate cases on the merits rather than procedural technicalities. See
Thacker v. City of Columbus, 328 F.3d 244, 252 (6th Cir. 2003).
In her first motion for an extension of time, Swain gives no reason for the delay. She
merely asserts that the short delay “will not prejudice any party to this action.” Mot. Extension 1,
ECF No. 16. In her second motion, Swain asserts that her “counsel’s office computer was
damaged and the delay in replacing the computer” prevented her from filing her reply. Second
Mot. Extension 1, ECF No. 17. In her reply, Swain asserts several reasons for her first motion for
an extension: (1) her counsel had multiple obligations related to Veteran’s Day and Marine
Corps Birthday events; (2) her counsel was busy responding to motions in the underlying state
court case, and (3) her counsel was busy conducting discovery and depositions in other cases.
Reply Supp. Mots. Extension 2–3, ECF No. 21.
Given the Court’s preference for adjudicating on the merits and given the reasons
asserted in Swain’s second motion and reply, the Court finds good cause for the requested
extensions. The Court will consider the arguments made in Swain’s reply filed on November 26,
2016 in its analysis of Swain’s motion to dismiss West Bend’s complaint.
The Court GRANTS Swain’s motions for an extension of time (DN 16 & 17).
IT IS SO ORDERED.

April 20, 2017

C al R Smpo I , ei J d e
h r s . i sn I Sno u g
e
I
r
U i dSae Ds i C ut
nt tt ir t o r
e
s tc

2